September 17, 2011

I wonder if his views have been influenced by his relationship w/ his daughter. I'd assume so. Presumably Althouse would be opposed to such decision making because it is influenced by personal experience. Or, maybe that anti-anecdote position is only for other people, re other issues? Where Althouse doesn't have her own anecdote.

I don't like argument/reasoning from anecdotes, and one's own personal experience is a subcategory of this. I don't think the argument for gay rights should hinge on whether you're gay or you know someone who is gay. If something is actually bad or morally wrong, you don't try to promote it by talking about the person in your family who does it. You may notice that I've been writing in support of same-sex marriage on this blog for more than 7 years, and I don't think I've ever bolstered the argument with anecdotes of personal experience. In fact, I think it cheapens the argument to blend that in.

I wonder if his views have been influenced by his relationship w/ his daughter.

I'd assume so.

Presumably Althouse would be opposed to such decision making because it is influenced by personal experience. Or, maybe that anti-anecdote position is only for other people, re other issues? Where Althouse doesn't have her own anecdote.

Presumably Althouse would be opposed to such decision making because it is influenced by personal experience. Or, maybe that anti-anecdote position is only for other people, re other issues? Where Althouse doesn't have her own anecdote.

So you support public policy decision-making based on anecdote, pb&j? Just asking.

What I think that many do not understand is that the Cheneys are westerners, and as such, they differ significantly from southerners and Texans. The people are individualists, and in turn, believe in live and let live. I would argue that you find this more of this group than any other in this country. Also, very self reliant.

Similarly, they are not loud about their religion, and, thus you will rarely see any proselytizing or moralizing.

I think that a lot of people have made the mistake of treating Dick Cheney as the evil twin of GW Bush. They are very different. Despite both wearing cowboy hats, they come from very different parts of the country. From a westerner's point of view, Texans are southerners, not westerners. Think about it for a minute. The evangelizing, the load boasting, etc. have no resonance in Wyoming, where the Cheneys come from.

I say this, having seen Colorado move from that sort of culture to a more cosmopolitan one during my lifetime. But you still see it when you get out of the big cities into the more rural areas.

It is pretty amazing how liberals know what conservatives think about gay people.

Most conservative people have gay people in their families. Just like the Cheney's. They love them just as much as anyone else. Just because they might not agree with this issue or that policy doesn't mean that they love them any less or want to punish or hurt them in the way that dances in the liberals fevered imaginations.

The problem is that the folks pushing for gay marriage do not want freedom for everyone. They want endorsement. Once they are free to marry, people who do not "approve" of the gay lifestyle will be no longer free to express their opinions or conduct their businesses in freedom.

In the ideal world of Mary Cheney and her friends musicians who play for hire will be brought to court for refusing to play for gay weddings.

Societal freedom is not their goal. Their goal is to change societal norms.

And yes, Cheneys views are colored by their love for their daughter and, I think, an unwillingness to see the loss of freedom to the rest of society.

Trooper is on to something. The liberal mindset is unable to even conceive that conservatives are and always have been contending with the same issues and problems in their lives as everybody else. As if, conservatives don't have gay children or siblings, or conservatives never get laid off, or conservatives are never without health insurance, and so on. This allows liberals to push the false template that conservatives therefore simply can't relate to the rest of the world who does have issues and problems in their lives.

There is currently an effort nationwide to include gays in hate speech legislation and discrimination laws generally. They want to be a protected class. Advocates in state legislatures and city councils push the same copycat laws, ordinance and proclamations.

A local lesbian has organized a Fight Racism rally the past three years, and in an interview yesterday she said it was about protecting Native Americans, our largest minority...and gays. So somehow racism is also about gays. Okay.

Freedom does indeed mean freedom for everyone and so-called "gay people" have and always have had the exact same liberty to marry as everyone else has. But what "same-sex marriage" warriors want is not freedom, but the power to redefine reality.

Freedom means freedom for everyone.

For example, straights and gays are both free to have 2+2=4, and they are equally free to have 2+2=5. Similarly, not only is a Jewish lawyer free to be a dolphin, we are all free to be dolphins.

We are all free, but freedom does not mean the freedom to create your own reality, your own truth, no matter what Supreme Court Jester Anthony Kennedy proclaims from on high. Freedom, to be authentically freedom, is necessarily dependent upon and subordinate to truth.

Any pretended freedom to create your own truth, to say that what is false is true, is not to be free, it is to become a slave to error.

Can you point to a single such bill let alone a law? No. Don't worry, if gay marriage were to be legalized, you would continue to be allowed to assemble and hate very publicly just like now. The neo-nazis do it. Why not you?

No Mary - a civil union would give them the same legal and contractual rights as a hetero couple. That is always the straw man isn't it? Can't visit in hospital/make decisions, can't inherit, yada yada. A civil union gives all that.

By pushing for marriage, you are trying to invalidate religion and faith and infringing upon the first amendment to boot.

So what do you want - the legal part, or the invalidating religion and faith part?

Mr. B.: Looks like you stopped reading after my first paragraph. Here's what follows:

"In the ideal world of Mary Cheney and her friends musicians who play for hire will be brought to court for refusing to play for gay weddings."

I had this argument with someone in the comments section of a local paper (online version) when our City Assembly was looking at an ordinance that added gays to the equal rights ordinance. Basically, he argued that OF COURSE my friend who is a harpist should be sued if she refuses to play for a gay wedding. That it may appear to her young girls (8 &10) to be an endorsement of the the marriage is of no consequence.

This is the goal of the left - to correct wrong thinking by fiat. In the name of "freedom".

A gay person has the same fundamental right of marriage that a straight person does.

A lesbian is free to marry a man anytime she wishes. If she chooses instead not to marry a man, that does not mean that she has been denied her freedom to marry. Rather, that is her choice.

Now, a lesbian can take a vow to love and honor another woman and to live with that other woman for the rest of their lives, but that is not, has never been, never will be, and never can be in any sense of the word "marriage."

The world is round. You may claim a right to say that it is flat, and you may even recruit the assistance of government to decree that the world is flat, but such decree does not, in fact, flatten the earth. It remains round.

"I want what you have. If I can't have it, you can't either! So there!"

Be more honest in your argument Mary. It's not about marriage, it's about changing the way society thinks. You and other LGBT activists want to change what parents teach their children. You are in favor of removing children from their homes if that's what it takes and will put laws in place to make that activity defensible.

Marriage is the tip of the iceberg. Grow up your argument to fit the issue.

As a conservative, I'll rest easy when the day comes that gays and lesbians can get married and fill their closets with firearms.

And there are plenty of religious gays in churches that recognize their right to marriage. How are those churches less legitimate than churches that don't recognize gay marriage? Gays get married all the time. It's just that those marriages are not recognized by the federal government. The whole religious vs. civil argument comes down squarely to what the religious consider legitimate dogma, not entertaining the notion that other dogmas are in play that may be contrary to theirs.

Example: Suzy and Sally decide to have to get married and have a wedding. They go across town to their church, the First Church of Christ, Lesbian, where they believe Jesus was actually Mary Magdalene in drag. That's their primary tenet of belief. The church is an actual church in the eyes of the law, duly enabled to perform marriages, which are a purely religious construct, according to commenter Mary.

Now, down the street at Our Lady of Lourdes, it's the same thing. They're a Catholic church, and they do the same things that the FCoCL does, except on a much bigger scale.

Both churches perform marriages legitimate to their beliefs, yet the Catholic marriage will be recognized by the state via licensing procedures denied to the members of the FCoCL.

The problem Mary has isn't with the religious aspect; it's with the dogmatic aspect. She will not tolerate nor brook opposition to her view that her dogma defines who can and cannot get married. She bases this reasoning on her perception of the word of god.

Therefore, by the etymology of the word, Mary's - and others here - intolerance of gay marriage is "bigotry."

It's too bad the veep debate "classic" from 2004 isn't as famous as the "Daisy Ad" ... which really only ran once; against Barry Goldwater.

But, since Dick Cheney reminisces this in his book IN MY TIME ... that I just roared when I heard him retell it.

In his setup, he starts out by saying he knew John Edwards was famous as a defense lawyer. So, he expected a really difficult debate. But John Edwards chose not to prepare.

Instead? Well, instead the moderator threw a question about the homosexual marriage act to John Edwards, who went off:

"Everybody knows Dick Cheney loves his daughters, and one of them is a lesbian."

THAT WAS IT! That was the theory the democraps owned in 2004 ... that if they just got this information out there ... Jon Carey would win.

Well, as you know Jon Carey lost. (With the same significance John McCain would "reach" to lose the 2008 presidential election.) 48%. Against 51%. (With a scattering of those votes going to "others." Including Ralph Nader. Who runs all of the time.)

Anyway, Dick Chaney was asked if he cared to respond to John Edwards' attack.

"Oh, no," said Dick Cheney. He just wanted to use the moment to thank John Edwards for his kind words towards his daughter, Mary.

You know, the "schtick" was repeated when Gwen (awful) Ifill asked when John Kerry, in the televised presidential debate, what was his opinion on the upcoming homosexuals get married "act."

Here, Kerry responded, "Everyone knows Mary Cheney is a lesbian."

You're probably just happy that the Silk Pony was a less than spiffy ticket choice, huh?

I still think Dick Cheney's response deserves to be remembered in some Hall of Fame of "debate" responses.

This country has been lucky to have both Dick and Lynn Cheney ... breaking out of poverty ... and reaching the absolute TOP of Americans who have served this country well. And, with honor.

Dubya? Not so much. But then Dubya couldn't figure out that Colin Powell was a treasonous bastard. And, his love for Condi Rice ... put her way above any particular set of qualifications. Other than she can plan the piano.

Civil Unions are not only successful in france, over there they are the "coupling" of choice, too, for heterosexuals.

That's what makes "CIVIL UNIONS" the best solution! It doesna't mean you need to be gay to have them. Lots of folk don't want to use the religious umbrella.

And, yes. "Marriage" is a hot button. It is used to raise money. And, it goes against the popular will of the people.

Fran Lebowitz has even said "why would a gay guy want to get married?"

According to Lebowitz, marriage just has you giving up your freedom. To be tied down to some old hag. You lose your desire to have sex with. Most gays, says Fran, wouldn't touch a "marital arrangement" with a ten foot pole.

So, basically, people who aren't religious have found a stick they can use to beat up religious people, who hold their faith dear.

On its face this is so sad! People who attack others for having a faith don't deserve to be hit with a stick!

The people who do this should be taxed! Any organization of theirs that has a tax free status? I'd look to pass a law that said "hate speech like that" goes unprotected. And, the benefits of a tax-free status is lost.

Traditional marriage (man + woman) IS NOT merely a religious institution. It is that, but it is also a sociological institution which has evolved over the last 5,000 years of western civilization. This and other such institutions didn't develop by chance or happenstance in willy-nilly fashion, nor as a result of irrational bigotry. Rather, they evolved through social experience and learned information, in furtherance of long term societal stability. Rubbish 5,000 years of acquired human wisdom to pursue modern pop culture whimsy at your peril. Unless you want to argue that homosexuality never existed until recent times.

We are pretty much still at the slippery slope Scalia warned the ditz Sandra Day O'Connor about after Lawrence.

If it is All About Freedom, then why shouldn't a Muslim Freedom LOver be allowed to import as many wives as he cares to have from Somalia or Pakistan? When has lack of means to support a wife or offspring been a bar to marriage? Polygamy marriage lawsuits are now going through several courts.

Why shouldn't some single old aunt with great health benefits from her government employee union, if this is about freedom for everybody, be allowed to marry her widowed sister, who lost her husband's employee healthcare when he died?

Optimize Freedom! Minimize the liability to taxpayers and employers from this!

If we are forced by our financial circumstances and the ever-widening gulf between the Super-rich and the rest of us - to reimpose an estate tax, how would the freedom for everyone to marry work out? Melinda Gates could divorce Bill Gates and marry her son..with the quitclaim Bill gives her a way to preserve all the money in the Gates Fortune to the Gates.

Who said marriage has to be about sex?

Wouldn't it be understood Melinda was not fucking her son, just using her freedom to marry whoever she wants for whatever reason?

Lynn and Dick Cheney, together, represent what a full life and happy marriage is all about.

Yes, his book IN MY TIME is an excellent and surprising read.

(I can't imagine that Dick Cheney had difficulties with beer and bars ... to the point he got kicked out of Yale, twice.)

He also says that he let Lynn when both were in high school. They don't marry until AFTER 2 DUI episodes. And, Dick's failure out of Yale ... He comes to Lynn EMPTY HANDED. And, she accepts his proposal.

Would the Cheney's have kept the information about Mary "private?" Sure. But he's been in public life. And, you don't keep those kinds of "secrets" ... because in American politics; your opposition will run these facts as high as they can get them UP.

The silk pony, John Edwards didn't even practice for his veep debate! (This is what Dick Cheney found so unusual.)

Seems when you're in a publicized debate, on TV ... and people will be tuning it it ... PRACTICE by candidates is crucial!

But John Edwards just thought he had to point out to the moderate of the veep debate, back in 2004, that Mary Cheney was gay.

THEN? Dick Cheney, when he was asked to respond, just said "I want to thank Mr. Edwards for his kind words about my daughter, Mary."

The moderator goes: "THAT'S ALL?"

Did you know Dick Cheney's dad was a registered democrat? And, he had to change this party designation to vote for his son's first run back in 1984.

I think Dick Cheney's dad would still be a very proud poppa.

As is Dick. With his children. And, his grandchildren.

And, with some very funny stories of how one grandchild wandered into a a "secret" hookup ... going over satellite ... When she wandered into Dick's office (at his house). While carrying in a slurpee cup of milk. And, a cookie, in her other hand.

Really! Read the book! Or listen to it on audio. It's SPECTACULAR!

By the way, Dick Cneney never got any pains in his chest, when he's having heart attacks. He just knows to go to the hospital, even if all he feels is one fingertip, tingling.

I think Mary's essentially right on this. If marriage is mainly a religious institution, then there should be no government definition of it- any more than the government defines baptism, say. That would be an establishment of sorts.

So any two people can get their govt civil union, and those who want to can get their pastor or priest to also make it a marriage- before God and whatnot.

But if two guys or girls go to a church that'll do it- there are plenty- then they can get "married" too. I am against laws that would mandate this.

The whole argument does get bogged down in semantics however. No one's going to say "civil union" in normal conversation no matter what the outcome is.

The argument that allowing gays to get "married" by those willing to do so is a violation of others' freedoms is a real stretch.

> Marriage is essentially non-religious. That it takes on religious meaning doesn't change it's essence. If it's religious in nature, then don't non-religious people marry?

In fact, marriage arises out of human nature itself. If you have any evidence that people wouldn't have thought of marriage without a religion telling them about it, please offer it.> Dick Cheney isn't a conservative--neither is Bush, for that matter. He's a moderate Republican from a very conservative state, hence he had to have a fairly conservative record just to survive. But periodically, he shows his true colors. Remember how he got started: he was chief of staff in whose White House? Ford. The guy Reagan nearly unhorsed in 1976.

> State-imposed redefined marriage isn't about new rights, since all the rights being sought could have been obtained more directly and certainly. It's about gaining affirmation in ones own okayness; it's colossal narcissism.

Younger Republicans are much less likely to be opposed to it than older Republicans.

Porkulus, ObamaReidPelosiCare, FrankenDodd, $14 tril in Federal debt, $3 tril in state debt, a bunch more in unfunded pension obligations, a cascade of Obamian regulations, an aspirational avalanche of Obamian taxes ... are going to hurt everyone, gay or straight, favorable or unfavorable to gay marriage.

sorepaw said...Gay marriage is gradually going to die out as a social issue.==============Tell me that when it spawns successor "marriage rights" such as polygamy and what are thought to be incestuous marriages but in effect marriages of convenience between blood relatives to diffuse taxpayer funded benefits within clans.

**************** Brian O'Connell said...I think Mary's essentially right on this. If marriage is mainly a religious institution, then there should be no government definition of it- any more than the government defines baptism, say. That would be an establishment of sorts.===============Your reasoning breaks down when marriage comes with legal and financial benefits and we then leave what is a legit marriage up to the belief system of your local Mullah who believes each man should have 4 wives, preferably imported from Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen or Afghaistan.Or a Satan worshipper Head Warlock, who holds marriage between man and beast as pleasing in the eyes of Lucifer Himself.

Marriage should be as we as a society agree to frame it as an institution, and not left up to some belief set of inamicable mainstream religions or even whackier Cults.

To be sure, there are plenty of folks for whom homosexual conduct is "bad" or "morally wrong," etc. But even if it were not "bad" or "morally wrong," it would still be ontologically erroneous, it would still be inconsistent with and contrary to the nature of the human person, male and female, it would still be a lie.

It is not necessary to think of those with same-sex attractions as disgusting or perverts, etc. Indeed, to do so would in itself by morally wrong and abhorent. Rather, those with same-sex attractions are the same as the rest of us, imperfect fallen human beings, each disordered in his or her own particular way.

With respect to so-called "gays," they are disordered specifically with respect to their views of human sexuality. Not only is there nothing wrong with their desire for love and affection, for children and family, but such things are moral goods. We are all made for love and family. However, they are in error with respect to the nature of love and sexuality.

But so what? Many so-called straight people have their own disorders in this area.

The morally proper response to those with same-sex attractions is not to hold them in contempt or think of them as inherently "bad," but to love them. And inherent in genuine love is to seek the good for the other, including if not especially that highest good which is truth.

Those with same-sex attractions are as entitled to truth as they are to love. And it is only in truth that they will really be set free. And the truth is that marriage is what it is, and marriage is not what it is not.

If marriage is mainly a religious institution, then there should be no government definition of it__________________

Well, of course, it is not merely or mainly a religious institution. It is also a social institution. But more than that, as has been pointed out, it is a matter of the nature of the human person, made as male and female.

Marriage existed before the governments of the United States did. Marriage existed before the English crown before, and it existed prior to the Roman Empire.

Marriage existed prior to any and all human government. And since government did not create marriage, it is not within the power or province of government to redifine it or even to define it in the first instance. Marriage was eternally "defined" long before governments were established.

Similarly, marriage existed prior to civil society short of government, as well as existing prior to any informal society or organizing of peoples. In fact, marriage is the first and primordial unit of society. And since society came after marriage existed, society too lacks the power to define it.

Rather, marriage existed and exists by virtue of the very nature of the person. Our human nature, as male and female, define what marriage is. Whether you believe that such human nature was previous created by "God" or whether you believe that humans sprung out of the ooze, being made male and female, each complementing the other, establishes marriage as being in the order of truth.

Bender: "it would still be ontologically erroneous, it would still be inconsistent with and contrary to the nature of the human person...."

This ontological perfection doesn't exist, except in your head, and in the heads of people who agree with you- who are many. Obviously we have sex drives in order to propagate the species. But for some reason, God or evolution is a bit sloppy on the details. Homosexuality seems fairly consistent across time and space. You want to perfect what God couldn't quite get right- seems to me that's a choice you're making- not a "truth".

Cedarford: "Your reasoning breaks down when marriage comes with legal and financial benefits and we then leave what is a legit marriage up to the belief system of your local Mullah...."

No, I think it's your reasoning that breaks down. I don't think the govt should define marriage or civil unions according to the precepts of a particular religion. Some Christians do, and so they have a problem when someone says another religion's ideas should be incorporated. My argument is to de-religionize it. There, I solved the Islam problem for you.

"Marriage should be as we as a society agree to frame it as an institution...."

Yes, exactly. This is what's going on in fact.

Fr Martin Fox: "In fact, marriage arises out of human nature itself."

I agree with this. The religious and legal aspects were added later. But those who come at it from a religious point of view believe that it originated from religion.

Humans pair-bond. Many mammals do this, and many do not. Marriage is primarily a social layering on top of this biological feature of our species, and the legal and godly are just bells and whistles on top of that. Any legal definition of marriage that plays well with our pair-bonding behavior will work just fine.

since government did not create marriage, it is not within the power or province of government to redefine it or even to define it in the first instance_________

With respect to marriage, the sole function and purpose of government is to protect marriage, just as the sole true end and function of all rightful government is to protect and defend society. As such, it is only in the protection of marriage that government might undertake to regulate it.

But, tt is not the rightful function of government to reconstruct or alter or destroy that which it was erected to preserve, protect, and defend.

Brian, if a male shoots his pro-creative genetic material into the digestive tract of another male, utilizing that digestive tract as a pseudo-vagina given its shape, that is entirely a matter of choice, not evolution or God.

To be more explicit, Brian, such ontological perfection does not exist merely in my head, but is observable by anyone and everyone who bothers to look at the biology and anatomy of a male and female.

If we absolutely must get graphic -- and apparently we do -- the elongated shape of the male genitalia is specifically designed to reach deep inside a woman's genitalia, where his type of genetic procreative material can reach her different type of procreative material.

One male shooting that material deep inside another male's digestive-waste tract serves no rational purpose whatsoever. Mixing together one's sperm with another guy's sperm will never in a zillion years result in one act of reproduction. As such, you don't need to be a radical evolutionist to realize that if homosexuality were genetic that gays would have died out millions of years ago.

Our bodies, and the nature of sex itself, are proof-positive that we are made for male-female, penile-vaginal sex.

Even when those who called themselves gay have "sex," they necessarily must mimic male-female sex -- they must lie to themselves -- when they resort to using a pseudo-vagina to get off on, whether it is an anus, mouth, or hand. They may think in their heads that they are attracted to the same sex, but the penis is attracted only to something that resembles the vagina in shape and function.

Homosexual "sex" is, by its very nature, a lie, a falsehood, contrary to the truth of human sexuality. Authentic freedom and liberty and rights to happiness cannot be grounded in contravention to such truth.

That truth of the nature of the human person and of the truth of human sexuality is not "merely in my head," Brian.

Gayness is not an ontological feature. "Gay" is not a state of being, it is not something that one is, it is something that one does or believes. Homosexuality is a flaw. And thinking that it is a state of being is a flaw. But big deal, we are all flawed in some way or other. We are all disordered in this way or that. We all think and believe and act contrary to the true order of things in some way. "Gays" are no exception, and we are wrong to assert that they are immune from such disorderedness.

Bender, right, like no straight dude ever 'wasted' his seed. Plenty of places to do so too- may or may not even involve a woman.

But you're arguing backwards from the purpose of sperm and concluding that it's only moral to release sperm in a way that they have a fighting chance to hook up with an egg- very Catholic, by the way.

Assuming you're religious, why would God- consistently- make a small percentage of the population gay? What's the point? Not another test I hope- like all those dinosaur bones. Some people don't test as well as others.

I don't believe in a God, so it's moot to me- on the level of asking who would win between the Enterprise and a Star Destroyer.

The process of evolution has landed us where we are- for reasons we don't fully understand. As long as no one else is harmed- people should be free to pursue happiness without their government getting in the way. That's conservative- in the best meaning of the term.

For years, while folks on both sides were fighting about the militant gay agenda, I didn't really care. It did not interest me. What some people did alone "in the privacy of their bedrooms" really did not concern me all that much.

But when that militancy begins to make demands of me, when it insists on calling what is false to be true and what is true to be false, and when it then demands that I not merely tolerate it, but give my sanction and approval, then they have made it my business to care.

The "gay rights" agenda is not about freedom by any stretch today, if it ever was. It is, like most things from the left, about forcible imposition. It is about eliminating that freedom to be left alone.

No, that's why I say "if". But if it's not religious, it's surely based entirely on physicalness and sexual mechanics. You leave out intangibles like sexual attraction, which are surely at play here. I mean, you're not heterosexual- assuming you are- because you took some time out for a good ontological look at male and female genitalia. Surely that's an ex post facto rationalization that happens to explain your otherwise mysterious attraction to one sex over another.

We're not entirely sure, scientifically that is, but it seems that sexual preference is quite real in itself. Apparently as real to a guy walking down the street as the shape of his genitalia and the relative shapes of those of passers-by. You assume this preference doesn't exist- a pretty big assumption given what we know about human behavior.

"I agree with this. The religious and legal aspects were added later. But those who come at it from a religious point of view believe that it originated from religion."

Well, I can't speak for any other religion, but I can for the Catholic Faith. What you say does not go for the Catholic Church.

The Church is adamant that marriage is essentially a natural institution, which takes on an added, religious meaning for Christians. For example: if I witness a marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian, that is not--per Catholic belief--a "religious" marriage; it is a natural marriage, because in order for it to be a sacrament, both parties must be baptized.

So not all marriages I witness, even as a Catholic priest, are "religious" in nature, even if they are conducted in a religious context.

Althouse says "You may notice that I've been writing in support of same-sex marriage on this blog for more than 7 years"

Does she delete Mary because she doesn't like people seeing the sort of lets-take-over-the-Capitol-till-we-get-our-way folks she's aligned herself with?

Is Althouse also in support of clergy being arrested for preaching parts of the Bible that are offensive to gays? Or parents opting their school kids out of sensitivity training?

Again, the marriage discussion is interesting, but it's a smokescreen for the larger goal of the LGBT community.

Bender said it well: "The 'gay rights' agenda is not about freedom by any stretch today, if it ever was. It is, like most things from the left, about forcible imposition. It is about eliminating that freedom to be left alone.

Apart from what you personally believe about God and his designs, if any, it simply doesn't follow that because homosexual desire manifests itself persistently through time, that God "created" or determined that it would be that way.

It would only follow if the existence of God demanded that every and any event must be a manifestation of his will. But that doesn't follow.

To say that God exists, and to say he created the world according to a plan, does not preclude human beings having:

> freedom to deviate from that plan;> weakness of will, resulting in folks choosing things that may not even be in their own best interest;> deviations, defects or privations arising in nature, for whatever reason, arising either in our bodies or in our personalities.

Actually, the creation story in Genesis explains this rather well.

God warned the couple not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and bad, because if they did, they would be doomed to die. They ignored this caution, and when they did, God explained all that they chose: a world of children (good) with pain (bad); work with sweat (bad) to gain food (good); and so forth.

When the time came to depart Paradise (where there is no time, no change), God clothed them, and showed them on their way. Notably, the reaction of the couple, to the news, was not tears, but Adam calling his wife "Eve, because she would be the mother of all the living." Meaning: Adam was already planning to do one of the good things--sex and family--despite knowing the trials that entailed.

We live in a world including choice and sin, and including experience of good and bad, and the moral of the Genesis story is that, as a package deal, it's more good than bad. Adam deemed it worth it, and so do we.

Fr Martin Fox: "The Church is adamant that marriage is essentially a natural institution, which takes on an added, religious meaning for Christians."

Hmm, I see. This fits in with my idea about the govt not defining marriage according to specific religious ideas about it. Catholics can define it any way they see fit and those marriages should have the added, religious meaning- for Catholics. But the govt should not give Catholic marriages extra benefits which aren't available to Jews, Muslims, atheists, or gays.

Bender: "I am heterosexual -- as WE ALL are -- because that is my nature as a human person."

There is human variety that can be ascribed to nature. Nature's a bit broader than you give it credit for.

Nonsense Ann. No one appreciates a logical argument more than I do but personal experience does not necessarily detract from reason. It's easy to be anti-something when it's distant and impersonal and seems threatening to your principals. It's aa lot harder when you see it up close every day and from that contact you realize that there is nothing threatening about it.

Same sex 'marriage' is like a martini made with yogurt and orange soda. You can call it what you like but the ontological reality doesn't change. 'Marriage' is a word which up until now has been used to describe a particular human relationship. The descriptive word we use FOLLOWS the reality. It doesn't create the reality.

I object to the perversion of the language. It is creating an Alice in Wonderland society where everyone can say along with Humpty Dumpty that a word means just what they want it to mean. This is going to lead to bartenders serving me yogurt sodas instead of martinis. Yecchh!!!

I was all for civil unions until I realized that the activists would simply use them as a stepping stone to demand more. So since it's all or nothing for them, I'm going to have to come down on the side of "nothing."

I think Althouse is on to something important with the "seen-unseen" distinction. But I'm not sure if I agree with what she says about anecdotal argument. It is clearly stupid and unconvincing to say, "Gay marriage is ok because my daughter is gay and she's a nice girl." But (I think) it is useful and effective to say, "I never really thought much about gay marriage, and reflexively opposed it, until my own daughter told me she was gay and wanted to marry. Then, I considered the following argument: (something like freedom means freedom for everyone).

The former is a case where the "seen" is presented as a proof of a logical argument, and latter is a case where the "seen" is presented as the inspiration for a logical argument.

Yes, "same-sex marriage" has to be argued. Because it is unnatural. Were it natural, argument would be superfluous and unthinkable.

Taking a cause to court or legislation to have it declared permissible says the cause is forlorn, unnatural and unjust but one wants the court or legislature to declare it permissible regardless. Yet, courts and legislatures cannot make the unnatural natural, the unjust just or the forlorn rampant. They can uphold reason or not and that is the extent of their power or measure of their degradation.

When gays have finally won the right to universal same-sex marriage they will abandon it en masse, like the rest of society is (unfortunately) doing._________________

It is not coincidental that the crowd that first pushed for easy divorce, and then insisted that living together was better because marriage was "just a piece of paper," are now the same crowd pushing for "same-sex marriage."

Why is it that conservatives are expected to grow into a position of accepting same sex marriage while the liberals who demand such growth refuse to themselves grow into a position of accepting being pro-choice?

The most ardent segment of SSM proponents hate the "civil union" nomenclature because having one term for gay couples and another for straight couples somehow insinuates that homosexuality is "less valuable" (wish I could remember the source of that quote) than heterosexuality. To such folks, calling gay legal unions something other than "married" is a grave insult on a par with the worst racial epithets.

So what does it mean when someone wants to legislate a dictionary definition? Does the question not answer itself? There's nothing anew about gay activists seeking to employ the government to affect people's opinions about homosexuality. That's why GLSEN exists, after all, along with the PC claptrap that equates "tolerance and diversity" with sucking up to all that is leftist and demonizing all that is non-leftist.

I'm old enough (9 yrs younger than our esteemed bloghostess) to remember when the Left ridiculed marriage as "just a piece of paper." The times they are a-changin'.

The language is public domain, anyway. Marriage is a contract between couple and society (or individual, opposite-sex harem and society**). Government is neither owner nor custodian of marriage, and thus has no authority to name the institution - it may only adopt the universal classification.

(**I was going to say "or man, harem and society," but a simple Wiki search reveals that there actually have been societies wussy enough for real-life polyandry to exist.)

Of course the state has an interest in 'marriage', seeing as how that is where new citizens are recruited. Policies which encourage fertile unions [a man plus a woman, Pal] which produce more citizens are in the interest of the state, if the state has any interest in continuing to exist.

The state has an interest in enforcing the rule of law with respect to community property and spousal violence.

And the state has an interest in mandating that the product (marriage) conforms to certain norms. You can't market orange juice in a milk bottle with the label 'Milk' on it. Why should anyone be allowed to market non-marital relationships as 'marriages'? It's a violation of truth in labeling.

I don't care what "marriage" is; there seems to be many different interpretations of the word and concept of "marriage" at present, just as there always was, no matter how many times people try to argue that marriage is as immutable and fixed and as eternal as some sort of elementary particle in physics. I wouldn't begin to define "marriage" for you or anyone else; that's between you and your spouse and your church (if you have one). Therefore, I think it's terrifying to cede to the secular State the power and authority to define the religious and/or personal concept of marriage. It doesn't matter how "good for society" you think a particular legal definition of marriage is; that sort of thinking created the "nanny State".

Unless the State treats marriage as a completely party-neutral (sex, age, race, etc.) contract like any other civil contract, it has no business meddling in the "institution" (such as it is) at all.

His standing as a father has no merit to the debate, because whether children have their own mother or father is irrelevant to the understanding of same-sex marriage.

If fathers don't matter to children when he argues it is a 'freedom' for two women, as a married couple and raise a child with, then his opinion as a father isn't important. He's nothing more then a sperm donor.

What's the problem? Or do you so-called small-government conservatives actually believe that the State has a legitimate role in enforcing religious/social policy?

Ah, the typical fallacy weapon used by palladian against small-government conservatives or conservatives in general. That if you are for small government, then you couldn't possibly be for a state having some legitimate role in social or religious policy. So therefore you can't be a small-government conservative or your some kind of hypocrite.

Of course the state has a legitimate role in certain aspects of society to deal with religious and social policy issues. Otherwise it would be irresponsible of that state to not do otherwise and you end up with anarchy. That was just a really douchy thing to say by you and I'm amazed you even said it. Take your blinders off. You chose this way of life, don't hold it against the rest of us if we collectively tell you no, you can't have everything you want because you think your special.

The levels of hubris that homosexuality seems to instill in some homosexuals is mind-boggling.

Was Mary Contrary arguing from personal anecdotes or something? Haha, just kidding. Thwarted rageball gets deleted. Personal anecdotes can be interesting and educational and they reveal a lot about the credibility of the conclusion reached. Like, "I know some gay guys who want to get married and they seem like nice guys so gay marriage is alright with me." Or, "every gay guy I knew in NY in the mid-late 1980s thought marriage was for 'breeders' so excuse me if the sudden onslaught of gay enthusiasm about marriage is giving me whiplash and making me suspicious about the political nature of the issue." An issue like gay marriage is something that our Framers did not envision and there's no obvious right or wrong in the Constitutional framework. Arguing from personal experience is how people work things out in their heads when there's no clear road map.